It’s so reassuring to see that the Bush Administration has its priorities straight. Because serious policy decisions should always be based on petty personal vendettas … .
Its good to be the king I guess. I notice Clinton went ahead and gave the speech. He probably realized (correctly) that Bush wasn’t going to sign on to Kyoto reguardless of whether he gave the speech or not. Bush has been pretty firm about his feelings about Kyoto.
-XT
Actually, Clinton had decided not to give the speech, but the organizers managed to convince Bush’s people to change their minds, so Clinton was back in. From the article:
It’s a negotiation tactic. Bush didn’t want Clinton playing in his sandbox, so he used the best leverage he had. If I were president, I wouldn’t want the guy who preceded me in office out there making speeches like that either. I don’t know if I’d use the same tactics, but you also have to keep in mind that Clinton said Bush was “flat wrong” on this issue. Isn’t it an unwritten rule that former presidents don’t criticise their successors while they are still in office?
Isn’t this the same Kyoto Accord which the US had already refused to sign, and probalby wouldn’t have signed now anyway?
That and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
Only if they’re related, apparently. Carter got his licks in recently as well, if you recall. The only former president (of sound mind) alive during Bush II’s reign who hasn’t criticized him is Poppy. And considering the differences in their political and policy styles, I’d bet it’d be gloves-off if they weren’t father and son.
Almost forgot that, while Reagan didn’t really have the ability to criticize George the Lesser, Mommy certainly expressed disapproval over several of his more Up-With-Christians! policies…stem cells in particular.
If I were president, I should bloody well hope I had the maturity and thick skin not to base my negotiating position for international treaties on my own petty insecurities.
I’ve long since stopped expecting such maturity from the current U.S. Administration. Still, it would be nice.
Ford? He’s of sound mind, if not sound body.
No, seriously, isn’t it considered extremely bad form for a former president to criticize a sitting president when he (the former president) is out of the country? I left that last part out of my earlier post, and that’s an important part.
No. This is “Kyoto II”-- negotiations for further greenhouse emissions after 2012.
Advocating for a contrary position =/= critizicing.
First I’ve ever heard of it. Sounds like a dumb tradition, to me.
No I do believe you have it wrong, advocating for a position contrary to the administration is unamerican, unpatriotic, treasonous, aiding the terrorists etc. etc. etc… Why do you people that think for themselves hate America so much??
Gah…forgot about Ford. I’m sure I’m not the only one, either…what’s he said on ANYTHING in the last six years?
Ahhh, I understand now. Thanks for the info.
Saying that Bush has it “flat wrong” = criticizing.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure it’s one of those unwritten rules politicians are suppose to opperate by. I think it’s reasonable, as long as both sides stick to it.
Nice strawman.
Just because you call it a strawman doesn’t make it one.
This is exactly how things have operated here in the US since Bush became president. You are now trying to pull this trick on Clinton with your insistance that he’s breaking some sort of American Tradition by disagreeing with the President.
So here you are, actually trying to accuse Clinton of being UnAmerican and when called on it, hiding behind some old school debate rhetoric. Nice going.
No thats disagreement. Things like Bush is incompetent etc. etc. is criticizing.
ROFL. We can’t help it. It’s our nature. We hate everything! Muah ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaah 